More Time in Glucose Range During Exercise Days than Sedentary Days in Adults Living with Type 1 Diabetes.
Objective: This study analysis was designed to examine the 24-h effects of exercise on glycemic control as measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).
Methods: Individuals with type 1 diabetes (ages: 15-68 years; hemoglobin A1c: 7.5% ± 1.5% [mean ± standard deviation (SD)]) were randomly assigned to complete twice-weekly aerobic, high-intensity interval, or resistance-based exercise sessions in addition to their personal exercise sessions for a period of 4 weeks. Exercise was tracked with wearables and glucose concentrations assessed using CGM. An exercise day was defined as a 24-h period after the end of exercise, while a sedentary day was defined as any 24-h period with no recorded exercise ≥10 min long. Sedentary days start at least 24 h after the end of exercise.
Results: Mean glucose was lower (150 ± 45 vs. 166 ± 49 mg/dL, P = 0.01), % time in range [70-180 mg/dL] higher (62% ± 23% vs. 56% ± 25%, P = 0.03), % time >180 mg/dL lower (28% ± 23% vs. 37% ± 26%, P = 0.01), and % time /dL higher (9.3% ± 11.0% vs. 7.1% ± 9.1%, P = 0.04) on exercise days compared with sedentary days. Glucose variability and % time/dL did not differ significantly between exercise and sedentary days. No significant differences in glucose control by exercise type were observed.
Conclusion: Participants had lower 24-h mean glucose levels and a greater time in range on exercise days compared with sedentary days, with mode of exercise affecting glycemia similarly. In summary, this study offers data supporting frequency of exercise as a method of facilitating glucose control but does not suggest an effect for mode of exercise.
Diabetes technology & therapeutics
Continuous glucose monitoring; Exercise; Time in range; Type 1 diabetes; hyperglycemia; hypoglycemia; physical activity
Riddell MC, Li Z, Beck RW, et al. More Time in Glucose Range During Exercise Days than Sedentary Days in Adults Living with Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(5):376-383. doi:10.1089/dia.2020.0495